Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: David Krieger

  • Anniversary of World Court Advisory Opinion

    The International Court of Justice (“Court,” or “ICJ”), the world’s highest court, issued its Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons on July 8, 1996. Thus, this week marks the 20th anniversary of that momentous opinion.

    Peace Palace
    Photograph: CIJ-ICJ/UN-ONU, Capital Photos/Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.

    The Court found in a split vote (7 to 7), with the casting vote of the Court’s president Mohammed Bedjaoui deciding the matter, that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be illegal under international law. The Court could not determine whether it would be legal or illegal to threaten or use nuclear weapons “in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”

    Three of the judges voting to oppose general illegality, however, were concerned with the word “generally” and wanted the Court to go further and remove any ambiguity about the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons. Judge C.G. Weeramantry, for example, argued in a brilliant dissenting opinion “that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is illegal in any circumstances whatsoever.” Thus, in actuality, ten of the fourteen judges supported either general illegality or total illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

    The Court also found unanimously that any threat or use of nuclear weapons must be compatible with the United Nations Charter and must also be compatible with the international law of armed conflict and particularly with “the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” This means that the threat or use of nuclear weapons must be capable of distinguishing between combatants and civilians and must not cause unnecessary suffering. It is virtually impossible to imagine any use of nuclear weapons that could meet such limiting criteria.

    Finally, the Court concluded, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” Unfortunately, despite this obligation, such negotiations have not taken place in the past twenty years.

    The tiny Pacific Island country, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, has cited the Court’s conclusion regarding this legal obligation in bringing contentious lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries at the International Court of Justice and separately against the United States in U.S. federal court. In the ICJ, only the cases against the UK, India and Pakistan are currently going forward, since the other six nuclear-armed countries do not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and have not opted to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter.

    The cases brought by the Marshall Islands in the ICJ are currently awaiting the Court’s ruling on preliminary objections filed by the three respondent countries. The case against the U.S. was dismissed in U.S. federal district court on jurisdictional grounds, and is currently on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Nuclear weapons are devices of mass annihilation. The ICJ found these weapons to be generally illegal and to require good faith negotiations leading to total nuclear disarmament. All nine nuclear-armed countries are in breach of this obligation to the detriment of the people of the world, including the citizens of their own countries. The Republic of the Marshall Islands has had the courage to bring this matter back to the ICJ as contentious cases.

    On the illegality of nuclear weapons, the then Court President, Mohammed Bedjaoui, stated: “Nuclear weapons, the ultimate evil, destabilize humanitarian law, which is the law of the lesser evil.  The existence of nuclear weapons is therefore a challenge to the very existence of humanitarian law, not to mention their long-term effects of damage to the human environment, in respect to which the right to life can be exercised.”

    On the 20th anniversary of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on threat or use of nuclear weapons, the people must wake up, stand up and speak out. Nuclear weapons are illegal as well as immoral and costly.  They are not even weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation. They serve no useful purpose and endanger all countries, all people, and all future generations. It is past time to end the nuclear era.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is the author of Zero: The Case for Nuclear Weapons Abolition.

  • Ten Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age

    The ten worst acts of the Nuclear Age described below have set the tone for our time.  They have caused immense death and suffering; been tremendously expensive; have encouraged nuclear proliferation; have opened the door to nuclear terrorism, nuclear accidents and nuclear war; and are leading the world back into a second Cold War.  These “ten worst acts” are important information for anyone attempting to understand the time in which we live, and how the nuclear dangers that confront us have been intensified by the leadership and policy choices made by the United States and the other eight nuclear-armed countries.

    1. Bombing Hiroshima (August 6, 1945). The first atomic bomb was dropped by the United States on the largely civilian population of Hiroshima, killing some 70,000 people instantly and 140,000 people by the end of 1945.  The bombing demonstrated the willingness of the US to use its new weapon of mass destruction on cities.

    2. Bombing Nagasaki (August 9, 1945). The second atomic bomb was dropped on the largely civilian population of Nagasaki before Japanese leaders had time to assess the death and injury caused by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier.  The atomic bombing of Nagasaki took another 70,000 lives by the end of 1945.

    3. Pursuing a unilateral nuclear arms race (1945 – 1949). The first nuclear weapon test was conducted by the US on July 16, 1945, just three weeks before the first use of an atomic weapon on Hiroshima.  As the only nuclear-armed country in the world in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the US continued to expand its nuclear arsenal and began testing nuclear weapons in 1946 in the Marshall Islands, a trust territory the US was asked to administer on behalf of the United Nations.  Altogether the US tested 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958, with the equivalent explosive power of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs daily for that 12 year period.

    4. Initiating Atoms for Peace (1953). President Dwight Eisenhower put forward an Atoms for Peace proposal in a speech delivered on December 8, 1953.  This proposal opened the door to the spread of nuclear reactors and nuclear materials for purposes of research and power generation.  This resulted in the later proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional countries, including Israel, South Africa, India, Pakistan and North Korea.

    5. Engaging in a Cold War bilateral nuclear arms race (1949 – 1991). The nuclear arms race became bilateral when the Soviet Union tested its first atomic weapon on August 29, 1949.  This bilateral nuclear arms race between the US and USSR reached its apogee in 1986 with some 70,000 nuclear weapons in the world, enough to destroy civilization many times over and possibly result in the extinction of the human species.

    6. Atmospheric Nuclear Testing (1945 – 1980). Altogether there have been 528 atmospheric nuclear tests.  The US, UK and USSR ceased atmospheric nuclear testing in 1963, when they signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty.  France continued atmospheric nuclear testing until 1974 and China continued until 1980.  Atmospheric nuclear testing has placed large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, causing cancers and leukemia in human populations.

    7. Breaching the disarmament provisions of the NPT (1968 – present). Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) states, “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament….”  The five nuclear weapons-states parties to the NPT (US, Russia, UK, France and China) remain in breach of these obligations.  The other four nuclear-armed states (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) are in breach of these same obligations under customary international law.

    8. Treating nuclear power as an “inalienable right” in the NPT (1968 – present). This language of “inalienable right” contained in Article IV of the NPT encourages the development and spread of nuclear power plants and thereby makes the proliferation of nuclear weapons more likely.  Nuclear power plants are also attractive targets for terrorists.  As yet, there are no good plans for long-term storage of radioactive wastes created by these plants.  Government subsidies for nuclear power plants also take needed funding away from the development of renewable energy sources.

    9. Failing to cut a deal with North Korea (1992 to present). During the Clinton administration, the US was close to a deal with North Korea to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.  This deal was never fully implemented and negotiations for it were abandoned under the George W. Bush administration.  Consequently, North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and conducted its first nuclear weapon test in 2006.

    10. Abrogating the ABM Treaty (2002).  Under the George W. Bush administration, the US unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.  This allowed the US, in combination with expanding NATO to the east, to place missile defense installations near the Russian border.  It has also led to emplacement of US missile defenses in East Asia.  Missile defenses in Europe and East Asia have spurred new nuclear arms races in these regions.

    David Krieger is a founder and president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

  • Ten Myths About Nuclear Weapons

    Nuclear weapons were needed to defeat Japan in World War II.

    It is widely believed, particularly in the United States, that the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to defeat Japan in World War II.  This is not, however, the opinion of the leading US military figures in the war, including General Dwight Eisenhower, General Omar Bradley, General Hap Arnold and Admiral William Leahy.  General Eisenhower, for example, who was the Supreme Allied Commander Europe during World War II and later US president, wrote, “I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced [to Secretary of War Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.  It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’….”  Not only was the use of nuclear force unnecessary, its destructive force was excessive, resulting in 220,000 deaths by the end of 1945.

    Nuclear weapons prevented a war between the United States and the Soviet Union.

    Many people believe that the nuclear standoff during the Cold War prevented the two superpowers from going to war with each other, for fear of mutually assured destruction.  While it is true that the superpowers did not engage in nuclear warfare during the Cold War, there were many confrontations between them that came uncomfortably close to nuclear war, the most prominent being the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.  There were also many deadly conflicts and “proxy” wars carried out by the superpowers in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The Vietnam War, which took several million Vietnamese lives and the lives of more than 58,000 Americans, is an egregious example.  These wars made the supposed nuclear peace very bloody and deadly.  Lurking in the background was the constant danger of a nuclear exchange. The Cold War was an exceedingly dangerous time with a massive nuclear arms race, and the human race was extremely fortunate to have survived it without suffering a nuclear war.

    Nuclear threats have gone away since the end of the Cold War.

    In light of the Cold War’s end, many people believed that nuclear threats had gone away.  While the nature of nuclear threats has changed since the end of the Cold War, these threats are far from having disappeared or even significantly diminished.  During the Cold War, the greatest threat was that of a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and Soviet Union.  In the aftermath of the Cold War, a variety of new nuclear threats have emerged.  Among these are the following dangers:

    • Increased possibilities of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who would not hesitate to use them;
    • Nuclear war between India and Pakistan;
    • Policies of the US government to make nuclear weapons smaller and more usable;
    • Use of nuclear weapons by accident, particularly by Russia, which has a substantially weakened early warning system; and
    • Spread of nuclear weapons to other states, which may perceive them to be an “equalizer” against a more powerful state.

    The United States needs nuclear weapons for its national security.

    There is widespread belief in the United States that nuclear weapons are necessary for the US to defend against aggressor states.  US national security, however, would be far improved if the US took a leadership role in seeking to eliminate nuclear weapons throughout the world.  Nuclear weapons are the only weapons that could actually destroy the United States, and their existence and proliferation threaten US security.  Continued high-alert deployment of nuclear weapons and research on smaller and more usable nuclear weapons by the US, combined with a more aggressive foreign policy, makes many weaker nations feel threatened.  Weaker states may think of nuclear weapons as an equalizer, giving them the ability to effectively neutralize the forces of a threatening nuclear weapons state.  Thus, as in the case of North Korea, the US threat may be instigating nuclear weapons proliferation.  Continued reliance on nuclear weapons by the United States is setting the wrong example for the world, and is further endangering the country rather than protecting it.  The United States has strong conventional military forces and would be far more secure in a world in which no country had nuclear arms.

    Nuclear weapons make a country safer.

    It is a common belief that nuclear weapons protect a country by deterring potential aggressors from attacking.  By threatening massive nuclear retaliation, the argument goes, nuclear weapons prevent an attacker from starting a war.  To the contrary, nuclear weapons are actually undermining the safety of the countries that possess them by providing a false sense of security.  While nuclear deterrence can provide some psychological sense of security, there are no guarantees that the threat of retaliation will succeed in preventing an attack.  There are many ways in which deterrence could fail, including misunderstandings, faulty communications, irrational leaders, miscalculations and accidents. In addition, the possession of nuclear weapons enhances the risks of terrorism, proliferation and ultimately nuclear annihilation.

    No leader would be crazy enough to actually use nuclear weapons.

    Many people believe that the threat of using nuclear weapons can go on indefinitely as a means of deterring attacks because no leader would be crazy enough to actually use them.  Unfortunately, nuclear weapons have been used, and it is likely that most, if not all, leaders possessing these weapons would, in fact, use them.  US leaders, considered by many to be highly rational, are the only ones who have ever used nuclear weapons in war, against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  In addition to these two actual US bombings, leaders of other nuclear weapons states have repeatedly come close to using their nuclear arsenals.  Nuclear deterrence is based upon a believable threat of nuclear retaliation, and the threat of nuclear weapons use has been constant during the post World War II period.  US policy currently provides that the US will not threaten or use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations.  Importantly, this leaves out other nuclear weapons states, as well as states not parties to the NPT and states the US determines not to be in compliance with their non-proliferation obligations.  US leaders have regularly refused to take any option off the table in relation to potential conflicts.  Threats of nuclear attack by India and Pakistan provide another example of nuclear brinksmanship that could turn into a nuclear war.  Historically, leaders of nuclear-armed countries have done their best to prove that they would use nuclear weapons.  Assuming that they would not do so would be extremely foolhardy.

    Nuclear weapons are a cost-effective method of national defense.

    Some have argued that nuclear weapons, with their high yield of explosive power, offer the benefit of an effective defense for minimum investment.  This is one reason behind ongoing research into lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, which would be perceived as more usable.  The cost of research, development, testing, deployment and maintenance of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, however, exceeds $7.5 trillion (in 2005 dollars) for the US alone.  The US is planning to spend another $1 trillion over the next three decades modernizing and upgrading every aspect of its nuclear arsenal.  The nine nuclear-armed countries are spending over $100 billion annually on their nuclear arsenals.  With advances in nuclear technology and power, the costs and consequences of a nuclear war would be immeasurable.

    Nuclear weapons are well protected and there is little chance that terrorists could get their hands on one. 

    Many people believe that nuclear weapons are well protected and that the likelihood of terrorists obtaining these weapons is low.  In the aftermath of the Cold War, however, the ability of the Russians to protect their nuclear forces has declined precipitously.  In addition, a coup in a country with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, could lead to a government coming to power that would be willing to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.  In general, the more nuclear weapons there are in the world and the more nuclear weapons proliferate to additional countries, the greater the possibility that nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists.  The best remedy for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists is to drastically reduce their numbers and institute strict international inspections and controls on all nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials in all countries, until these weapons and the materials for making them can be eliminated.  The 2016 Nuclear Security Summit had a narrow focus on protecting civilian stores of highly enriched uranium (HEU), which accounts for only a very small percentage of the world’s weapons-grade material.

    The United States is working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations.

    Most US citizens believe that the United States is working to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations.  In fact, the United States has failed for nearly five decades to fulfill its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race at an early date and for nuclear disarmament.  The US is currently being sued in US federal court by the Republic of the Marshall Islands for failing to fulfill its nuclear disarmament obligations under the NPT.  Rather than negotiating to end the nuclear arms race, the US is planning to upgrade and modernize all aspects of its nuclear arsenal, delivery vehicles and nuclear infrastructure.  The United States has also failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  Further, it has unilaterally withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and thereby abrogated this important treaty.  The New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the US and Russia, which was signed in April 2010 and entered into force in February 2011, will reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads on each side to 1,550 by the year 2018.  This is not, however, a fulfillment of the US treaty obligations under the NPT.

    Nuclear weapons are needed to combat threats from terrorists and “rogue states.”

    It has been argued that nuclear weapons are needed to protect against terrorists and “rogue states.”  Yet nuclear weapons, whether used for deterrence or as offensive weaponry, are not effective for this purpose. The threat of nuclear force cannot act as a deterrent against terrorists because they do not have a territory to retaliate against. Thus, terrorists would not be prevented from attacking a country for fear of nuclear retaliation.  Nuclear weapons also cannot be relied on as a deterrent against “rogue states” because their responses to a nuclear threat may be irrational and deterrence relies on rationality.  If the leaders of a rogue state do not use the same calculus regarding their losses from retaliation, deterrence can fail.  As offensive weaponry, nuclear force only promises tremendous destruction to troops, civilians and the environment.  It might work to annihilate a rogue state, but the force entailed in using nuclear weaponry would be indiscriminate, cause unnecessary suffering, and be disproportionate to a prior attack, as well as highly immoral.  It would not be useful against terrorists because strategists could not be certain of locating an appropriate target for retaliation.

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). Angela McCracken, the 2003 Ruth Floyd intern in human rights and international law at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, was co-author of an earlier version of this article.

    6/08/16
    7/03/08
    7/07/03

  • Fiel a si mismo

    Traducción y adaptación de Rubén D. Arvizu. Click here for the English version.

    Muhammad Ali era fuerte y saltarín
    y con el Vietcong no quería ser un malandrín.

    Siempre tenía poemas o chistes ocurrentes
    sobre dónde iban a aterrizar sus oponentes.

    Le decían el “bocón de Louisville”
    Y fue campeón del mundo sin ser servil.

    Que tenía valor, eso nadie lo dudó
    y a gigantes del ring bien que los sacudió.

    A las filas del ejército fue convocado
    “No, gracias.”, contestó al llamado.

    Con los vietnamitas no tenía problema
    “no iré a esa guerra”, fue su lema.

    El matar le impedía su religión
    y el gobierno ordenaba aniquilar al vietcong.

    Su bien ganada corona se la quitaron de un plumazo,
    lo amenazaron con cárcel y lo llamaron payaso.

    A pesar de todo, a sí mismo fue siempre fiel,
    sus creencias más profundas eran dogma para él.

    Al final, mi héroe que estaba lleno de lodo
    la Suprema Corte lo exculpó de todo

    Muhammad Ali era fuerte y saltarín
    y con el Vietcong no quería ser un malandrín.

    David Krieger es Presidente de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
    Ruben D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de la Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • True to Himself

    Muhammad Ali was graceful and strong
    and he had no quarrel with the Vietcong.

    He always had a poem or a quip at hand,
    particularly about where his opponents might land.

    They called him the “Louisville Lip,”
    as he danced his way to the world championship.

    That he had courage, there was no doubt,
    facing giants in the ring and taking them out.

    When called upon to fight in the Army’s ranks,
    he said in so many words, “No thanks.”

    He had nothing against the Vietnamese foe,
    so he dug in his heels and refused to go.

    He said his religion barred him from killing,
    while the government said he should be willing.

    They took away his well-earned crown,
    threatened him with jail and called him a clown.

    Through it all, he stayed true to himself,
    not allowing his deepest beliefs to be put on a shelf.

    Finally the man who I call a hero
    won at the Supreme Court eight to zero.

    Muhammad Ali was graceful and strong
    and he had no quarrel with the Vietcong.

  • Mensaje al Muro

    Traducción de Ruben D. Arvizu. Click here for the English version.

    Estimado muro,

    Tu superficie pulida engaña.

    Pareces sereno, sin embargo, estás lleno de angustia y potencial perdido.

    Eres un muro de enorme tristeza.

    Tu recuerdas a los jóvenes, cuyas vidas fueron envueltas en las llamas de la guerra.

    Querían vivir y amar, pero la cruel guerra los detuvo.

    Tenían vidas, pero las mentiras de sus líderes los llevaron a la guerra.

    Su error fue confiar.

    Y nunca regresaron con sus seres queridos.

    Muro, sus nombres están tallados en ti.

    Sus corazones se agitan a tu alrededor.

    Estos jóvenes que murieron son centinelas, advirtiendo el peligro.

    Nos recuerdan que la guerra es un juego de tontos.

    Un juego en el que todos pierden.

    A excepción de los comerciantes de armamentos.

    Muro, tú reflejas el precio humano de la guerra.

    Deja que los viejos y canosos paguen el precio, si deben hacerlo.

    Pero, juventud, sé cautelosa con la guerra.

    David Krieger es Presidente de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

    Ruben D. Arvizu es Director para América Latina de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

  • President Obama in Hiroshima

    President Obama will be the first US president to visit Hiroshima while in office.  His visit, on May 27th, has historic potential.  It comes at a time when nuclear disarmament talks with Russia and other nuclear-armed nations are non-existent and all nuclear-armed nations, led by the US, are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  The US alone has plans to spend $1trillion on modernizing every aspect of its nuclear arsenal, delivery systems and infrastructure over the next 30 years.

    Hiroshima is the first city ever to be attacked by a nuclear weapon.  It is a beautiful, modern city, but at the same time a city that symbolizes the enormous destructive power of nuclear weapons.  The bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was 15 kilotons, small by today’s standards, and it killed more than 70,000 people immediately and more than 140,000 by the end of 1945.  These statistics do not do justice to the suffering and death inflicted on Hiroshima with the bomb the US had nicknamed “Little Boy.”

    hiroshima
    The city of Hiroshima in 1945 after the U.S. atomic bombing that killed at least 140,000 people.

     

    I have visited Hiroshima many times and also the second atomic-bombed city, Nagasaki.  What I have found in these cities are survivors of the atomic bombings who are eager to assure that what happened to their cities never happens to other cities.  In these cities, there is a very different orientation toward nuclear weapons than there is in the US.

    What we learn in the US about nuclear weapons is a perspective from above the bomb.  It could be paraphrased in this way: “The bomb was a technological triumph that we used to win the war.”  In this view of the bomb there are no humans or other forms of life – only technological triumph and statistics.  The perspective on the bomb in the atomic-bombed cities is just the opposite; it is from beneath the bomb.  It is filled with stories of massive destruction, death and human suffering.

    When the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it did so with impunity.  Japan was already defeated in war and did not have atomic bombs with which to retaliate against us.  That was more than 70 years ago.  Today there are nine nuclear-armed countries capable of attacking or retaliating with nuclear weapons.  Missiles carrying nuclear weapons can travel across the globe in a half-hour.  No one is secure from the consequences of a nuclear attack – not only the blast, fire and radiation, but also those of nuclear famine and nuclear winter.

    With nuclear weapons, there is no security, even for the attacking country.  In addition, nuclear weapons are immoral and illegal.  They also undermine democracy and waste financial and scientific resources that could be used to improve life rather than destroy it.

    Shortly after assuming office, President Obama said that America seeks the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons and that the US has a responsibility to lead the way to achieve that goal.  For those reasons and for the sake of children everywhere, the president must offer a significant proposal for achieving nuclear zero while the world’s attention is focused on him in Hiroshima.

    What should he do?  I suggest that he bring three gifts to the world with him when he travels to Hiroshima: his courage, his humanity and a plan to end the nuclear insanity.  His courage and humanity surely will travel with him; they are part of who he is and will be inherent in any plan to end the nuclear insanity.  His plan must be bold, show true leadership, and move beyond rhetoric to action.

    I suggest that the plan be simple with one major element: offer to convene the nine nuclear-armed countries to begin good faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.  For the future of all humanity, these negotiations must begin and succeed.

    If the president wants to go further and reduce the possibility of accidents or of nuclear weapons being used while negotiations are taking place, he could offer to work with the Russian Federation and the other nuclear-armed countries in reciprocally taking all nuclear weapons off high-alert and in cancelling plans to modernize nuclear arsenals.

    President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima may be humanity’s last best chance to step back from the nuclear precipice and to start down the path to nuclear zero.

    David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org), and has served as its President since 1982.

  • Take Three Gifts on Your Journey

    Mr. President,

    The word is out.

    You will visit Hiroshima in May.

    In Hiroshima, nuclear weapons become real.

    The possibility of destroying civilization
    becomes tangible.

    Visiting Hiroshima is an opportunity to lead the way back
    from the brink.

    Take three gifts to the world on your journey: your courage,
    your humanity, and a proposal to end the insanity.

    Offer to convene the nuclear nine to negotiate a treaty
    to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    Set the world back on course.

    Do it for the survivors.

    And for children everywhere.

  • What Is the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation?

    A voice of conscience in the Nuclear Age.  The Foundation views peace as an imperative of the Nuclear Age, believing that any war fought today has the potential to become a nuclear war of mass annihilation.

    LOGO BUG PAGESAn advocate for peace, international law and a world without nuclear weapons.  The Foundation not only educates but is a nonpartisan advocate of achieving peace, strengthening international law, and ending the nuclear weapons threat to humanity.

    A force for challenging reliance on nuclear weapons.  The Foundation challenges the rationale of countries that justify reliance upon nuclear weapons for deterrence (see our video “The Myth of Nuclear Deterrence” and our “Santa Barbara Declaration: Reject Nuclear Deterrence, an Urgent Call to Action”).

    An advocate of renewable energy sources and of eliminating nuclear power.
    Shifting to renewable energy sources is necessary to dramatically reduce polluting the planet and to halt climate change.  Nuclear power must be eliminated due to its proven potential for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, its attractiveness to terrorists seeking to obtain and disburse radioactive materials, and for other reasons, including its potential for accidents and the lack of a solution to long-term radioactive waste storage.

    A source of inspiration to the next generation that a better world is possible.  The Foundation empowers young people through contests, internships and peace leadership trainings, seeking to raise their level of awareness and engagement in issues of peace, nuclear disarmament and global security.

    A pioneer in Peace Leadership and Peace Literacy training.  The Foundation is pioneering peace leadership and peace literacy trainings and workshops for people throughout the country.  The program is led by Paul K. Chappell, a West Point graduate and author of five books on ending war and waging peace.

    A catalyst for engaging the arts in peace.  The Foundation encourages peace in the arts through its annual Barbara Mandigo Kelly Peace Poetry Awards and and its annual Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest.

    A forum for reexamining national and global priorities.  The Foundation organizes forums and lectures, including its annual Frank K. Kelly Lecture on Humanity’s Future, on key issues confronting humanity.

    A storehouse of memory and source of analysis concerning key nuclear issues.  The Foundation has created NuclearFiles.org as an on-going source  of key information about the Nuclear Age.  It also maintains extensive archives of articles on its WagingPeace.org website.

    An organization that seeks to move nations to act for humanity.  The Foundation participates in major international meetings, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conferences, and seeks to influence national positions to achieve safer and saner policies, including support for a Nuclear Weapons Convention for the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons.  The Foundation consults with the Marshall Islands in their courageous Nuclear Zero lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries in the International Court of Justice and, separately, against the U.S. in U.S. Federal Court.

    A community of committed global citizens.  The Foundation is composed of individuals from all walks of life and all parts of the globe who seek to end the nuclear weapons threat to humanity and to build a more just and peaceful world.

    Click here to download this as a one-page PDF.

  • Open Letter to President Obama

    Mr. President,

    Visit Hiroshima.

    It is a beautiful, bustling city.

    It will change your view of the world.

    You will realize viscerally what nuclear weapons do to people.

    John Kerry called it “gut-wrenching.”

    It is that and more.

    It is a city of warning and Hope.

    It teaches lessons that can’t be learned in a classroom.

    Civilization is at risk.  Humanity is at risk.

    All we love and treasure is at risk.

    Nuclear weapons must be abolished before they abolish us.

    Visit Hiroshima with Peace in your heart.

    The people of Hiroshima have already forgiven us.

    Visit Hiroshima with determination to end the nuclear weapons era.

    Be bold.  Take action.  Realize your dreams.

    This is your chance.  Seize it.  Yes, you can.

    Visit Hiroshima with Hope in your heart.

    Let your Hope meet that of Hiroshima.

    Open the eyes of the world.

    Be the leader we have been waiting for.

    Reveal your plan for Nuclear Zero.

    Take the first step.

    Visit Hiroshima.